Word is out that rankers want to put their hands on “sustainability”. They have already distorted the purpose of “education” by ranking universities using a narrow spectrum, R&D (though important), and publications criteria that skewed the understanding of what seeking knowledge is all about.
An admission was reportedly made in public by a ranker at a recent meeting. The ranker allegedly apologised to a group of participants attending an event promoting rankings. The participants seemed happy to endorse the ranking exercise.
Hence it was no surprise that they did not raise a criticism against the so-called ranker. Rather it was the other way around. By paying top dollar to attend the meeting, it gave the impression that the ranking game has somewhat made universities more compliant. Some are resigned to the fate that ranking is here to stay – a cliché commonly used to justify the case when pressed against the wall. In other words, they are trapped (read indoctrinated) in accepting that such an exercise is academically “honest” – whereas it is not so for all intents and purposes.
After all many are scrutinising the issue which has led the rankers to opt for other ventures to keep their business afloat academically speaking. Financially, however, they are laughing all the way to the bank. It is no wonder that the rankers are now raising the stakes by having their hands on other market segments, the latest is “sustainability” in higher education institutions and universities.
So far there is little or no debate about it, let alone any protest by the institutions. Instead, several are being recruited to “develop” such a system. Sooner than we think, there will be another ranking system commercially- driven for universities to splash their limited resources for another foolhardy numbers game in a new sustainability league table. The outcome: another facet of education is up for distortion.
To appreciate this vital implication is to understand the very concept of “sustainability”.
More so, the values it stands for as envisaged by Unesco, the lead UN agency that initiated the concept endorsed by all member states. It goes back to why “sustainability” was coined. It was intended to address some of the “unscrupulous” (commercial) practices in certain segments of the global industry that has resulted in widening environmental damages putting the status of the planet over a long-term in limbo.
This is currently identified as global warming on the back of changing climatic scenarios never experienced before by countries across the globe. While this came into realisation only some 30 years ago, the damage done could be easily traced to more than a century following the introduction of the “first industrial revolution” in the 1700s. It then saw massive pollution invading the global atmospheric space beyond provincial Europe where early industrialisation took root.
In short, it marked the birth of a large- scale industrial assault on nature and the global inhabitants. As though this was not serious enough, it sparked a race for industrialisation worldwide, worsening the ecological threat as economic competitiveness became even more aggressive and unsustainable.
Ironically, while only a handful gain from the “assault”, the entire world is made to suffer with ecology taking a heavy toll, without any serious compensation that could halt the deterioration all round (read unsustainable development).
In summary, “sustainability” needs no “ranking” because it adamantly stands for “collaboration” throughout the world by promoting and practising “sustainability” as a way of life that has been squandered through raw and unbridled competition.
This is one fatal outcome when countries ranked over one another where the proposed winner takes all and there can only be one winner.
In contrast, “sustainability” advocates the reverse, namely, there are several winners, almost all can be winners given the very nature of the concept based on the 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs). From this alone, it is apparent that to attempt to rank “sustainability” is counter-productive to say the least.
It exposes the ignorance, if not arrogance, of those contemplating such an idea.
What is more trying to put it into practice will eventually “kill” the idea of “sustainability as a development” platform to bring about an equitable and just world by demonstrating that there is “enough, for everyone, forever” which is the essence of SDGs has come to mean in lay terms. And this must come to fruition by 2030 according to the Education for Sustainable Development roadmap.
Failure to take all these, and more, into consideration, by forcing or ignoring them for the sake of a“one-size- fits-all” commercially-driven ranking gimmickry is a non-starter. What else in view of the 17 goals to be fulfilled and 169 targets to be met by 2030. Based on this, to any right-thinking academic who lives and breathes “sustainability”, the verdict is clear: hands off. It is academically absurd and intellectually dishonest to even try to rank sustainability. Period.
Source: Dzul Razak in the SUN ON WEDNESDAY | December 19, 2018